Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Buying a Car That's Safe From Hackers?

Posted by Soulskill on from the add-the-firewall-option-for-only-$499-more dept.

An anonymous reader writes: I'm in the market for a new car, and I've been going through the typical safety checklist: airbag coverage, crash test results, collision mitigation systems, etc. Unfortunately, it seems 2015 is the year we really have to add a new one to the list: hackability. Over the past several weeks we've seen security researchers remotely cut a Corvette's brakes, shut down a Tesla's computer, unlock a bunch of cars, intercept Onstar, and take over a Jeep from 10 miles away.

So, how do we go about buying a car with secure systems? An obvious answer would be to buy a car with limited or archaic computer control — but doing so probably comes with the trade-off of losing other modern safety technology. Is there a way to properly evaluate whether one car's systems are more secure than another's? Most safety standards are the result of strict regulation — is it time for the government to roll out legislation that will enforce safety standards for car computers as well?

7 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. 65 VW Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Safe from EMP as well.

    1. Re:65 VW Bug by theNetImp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      my thought as well, go back to a carburetor based non-computer timed car from the 60/70s/80s

    2. Re:65 VW Bug by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Automotive electronics are designed to be pretty EMP-resistant from the beginning because the ignition coils produce what amounts to small EMPs - and they're connected to the power rails!

      Automotive engine compartments are one of the most electrically noisy environments out there.

      As far as a "hacker-safe" car - buy a car WITHOUT those snazzy remote management features like uConnect/OnStar/etc. All of the remote compromises out there have used those "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" attack routes.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  2. The fix by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Buy a horse.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Re:you void your warranty by quintus_horatius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if someone else tampers with your software by exploiting security holes? Does THAT void your warranty as well?

  4. Re:Classic FUD by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a nobody as well. I've had my car broken into because of the brick through side window exploit. I'm searching for a car that doesn't have electronics or windows. Right now I'm left with a Razr scooter and an Amish buggy.

  5. Re:Classic FUD by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You might not be important, but you don't have to be if the goal is to cause accidents on major highways. In those situations the logical target would be the popular cars of the unimportant people. I'd just rather not have the connectivity in the first place. I am tired of manufacturers making excuses about their shitty software and over-automated cars. Needless complexity lowers safety and adds expense.

    Even toyota's not immune btw..